Women on the front lines??

Options
16791112

Replies

  • Laces_0ut
    Laces_0ut Posts: 3,750 Member
    Options
    My daughter's Biology teacher (a man) told her today that males are the weaker sex. If a man can battle on the front lines why can't a woman. We can do anything they can do plus birth a child.

    thats not true. how does he define weaker? its possible women have a higher pain threshold or greater immunity but that doesnt really matter a lot in this case.
  • FGVC1188
    FGVC1188 Posts: 122 Member
    Options
    My daughter's Biology teacher (a man) told her today that males are the weaker sex. If a man can battle on the front lines why can't a woman. We can do anything they can do plus birth a child.

    lol
  • Laces_0ut
    Laces_0ut Posts: 3,750 Member
    Options


    really? that's what you got from my post? First of all, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But like I said, people are going to have to deal with the REALITY of the situation.

    Some female soldier may be the fastest, strongest and smartest. Guess what, that first female soldier at an infantry unit is going to get 0 respect and 0 trust just for being female... I mean, that's just what's going to happen. Is that wrong? is that BS... YES... does that change the fact that it's the way things would be? NO.

    I'm just saying... there's a right way and a wrong way to go about this; I might not know the right way to go about it... but I know the wrong way when I see it.

    of course there will be people that have a problem with it. just like there were people that had a problem with integration.

    but you have to give people the opportunity to start changing people's minds. if we let women in combat now then in a few years or maybe a decade they will have earned that respect.
  • Laces_0ut
    Laces_0ut Posts: 3,750 Member
    Options
    can we get past the whole I can do what you can do bit?

    Ability isn't the issue with integration... it's about prejudice and culture that needs to be slowly changed.

    tell that to all the people who are being held back as things move slowly.
  • elevenbee
    elevenbee Posts: 43 Member
    Options
    Held back? from what? do you even know how advancement in the military works?

    regardless, advancement shouldn't be made at the price of people's lives. and when your job is to stay alive while on patrol... that's what's at stake... so should it wait? yeah, damn straight it can wait.

    If you're going to do it, do it right the first time. There's enough wait and see crap going on as it is.
  • Laces_0ut
    Laces_0ut Posts: 3,750 Member
    Options
    Held back? from what? do you even know how advancement in the military works?

    regardless, advancement shouldn't be made at the price of people's lives. and when your job is to stay alive while on patrol... that's what's at stake... so should it wait? yeah, damn straight it can wait.

    If you're going to do it, do it right the first time. There's enough wait and see crap going on as it is.

    obviously the military disagrees with you. they seem to think women in combat is viable. sorry that letting women have this option doesnt work for you. :(

    its amazing that in this day in age there are still people that want to limit someone based on sex, race, sexual orientation...
  • FGVC1188
    FGVC1188 Posts: 122 Member
    Options
    Why are people so unwilling to admit that no matter what men and women are not the same. Equality =/= sameness.
  • elevenbee
    elevenbee Posts: 43 Member
    Options

    obviously the military disagrees with you. they seem to think women in combat is viable. sorry that letting women have this option doesnt work for you. :(

    its amazing that in this day in age there are still people that want to limit someone based on sex, race, sexual orientation...

    First of all, the military wholeheartedly agrees with me; the implementation of this "integration" is to be gradual, for some occupations, assignment of females is restricted to only the Battalion level and not the line level.

    Also, women are still not to be integrated into Infantry companies.

    And second of all, as I've stated over and over again, I PERSONALLY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. I can't believe I actually wrote something out in caps...

    Maybe if I put it in caps you'll be forced to read it this time. Like I said before, personal preference does not change what would actually happen if this change isn't implemented gradually... so yeah, at least know your facts before you say something like you just did.
  • Laces_0ut
    Laces_0ut Posts: 3,750 Member
    Options
    so you support the military's decision? good!
  • elevenbee
    elevenbee Posts: 43 Member
    Options
    so you support the military's decision? good!

    Laces_0ut, do you even know what you're arguing at this point? or are you just trolling?
  • sweetchildomine
    sweetchildomine Posts: 872 Member
    Options
    I like cheese.
  • Zekesmom
    Options




    Also, women are still not to be integrated into Infantry companies.




    I have not noticed, and maybe I have over looked this, but are you a military member?

    And to respond to the quote in question, this may be true for the U.S military ( though I cannot state fact as I am Canadian ), it is NOT TRUE for the Canadian Military, for which I am an ex serving member. My husband is a current serving NCM in the RCAF. My cousin ( female ) just came off her 3rd tour in Afghanistan and is FRONT LINE combat.
  • onepillarofsalt
    onepillarofsalt Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    The argument that women should not be assigned to combat roles has been weak ever since the United States began "attaching" women to combat roles without the official title of being "in" combat. This led to women being put in the same combat situations as their male counterparts, only without the benefit of being considered for higher promotions. 80% of the highest ranking officers get their promotions out of direct relation to their time in combat roles, and that strongly favours men in the military and presents the proverbial glass ceiling for women.
  • Laces_0ut
    Laces_0ut Posts: 3,750 Member
    Options
    so you support the military's decision? good!

    Laces_0ut, do you even know what you're arguing at this point? or are you just trolling?

    im starting to wonder what your point is.

    i am arguing that women should be allowed to participate in combat if they pass the same tests that men do.

    denying someone that opportunity based on sex, race or sexual orientation is an antiquated idea that needs to be eliminated ASAP.

    what is your stance?
  • Chapter3point6
    Options
    gijane.jpg
  • elevenbee
    elevenbee Posts: 43 Member
    Options
    The argument that women should not be assigned to combat roles has been weak ever since the United States began "attaching" women to combat roles without the official title of being "in" combat. This led to women being put in the same combat situations as their male counterparts, only without the benefit of being considered for higher promotions. 80% of the highest ranking officers get their promotions out of direct relation to their time in combat roles, and that strongly favours men in the military and presents the proverbial glass ceiling for women.

    What? no. it's about how many slots are open in the rank above you. It's a points based system based on the schools you take and your performance... there's no bonus points exclusive to men from combat... arguments could have been made for the CIB as it's an infantry exclusive award, but now that there's a CAB that argument is moot.
  • Hbazzell
    Hbazzell Posts: 899 Member
    Options
    Women have been on the front lines for years in other countries...Israel?
  • ApexLeader
    ApexLeader Posts: 580 Member
    Options
    i think this is an opportunity for men to ask to be relieved of their combat "privileges." let the women take it from here for the next 100-200 years.
  • elevenbee
    elevenbee Posts: 43 Member
    Options
    so you support the military's decision? good!

    Laces_0ut, do you even know what you're arguing at this point? or are you just trolling?

    im starting to wonder what your point is.

    i am arguing that women should be allowed to participate in combat if they pass the same tests that men do.

    denying someone that opportunity based on sex, race or sexual orientation is an antiquated idea that needs to be eliminated ASAP.

    what is your stance?

    That opportunity and ability is not the issue.

    That there needs to be the recognition, that culturally this needs to be done in a manner that doesn't rock the boat too badly.

    Acknowledge that prejudice exists, and it just won't go away if you give it enough time.

    Just because a woman passes doesn't mean she should be thrown to the wolves, whether she volunteered or not, someone is still responsible for her well being. Volunteering doesn't mean you just get to go. Service in the military is a privilege, not a right, don't ever forget that.
  • elevenbee
    elevenbee Posts: 43 Member
    Options
    Women have been on the front lines for years in other countries...Israel?

    Then in those countries where it's been the norm it won't be an issue, in the USA, it hasn't been the norm... ever. so yeah.. it's going to cause some people to blink.